Ukraine must fight for Crimea the way Crimean Tatars fought for their return - Mykola Kniazhytskyi

On February 5, the Russian occupiers conducted massive searches and arrests in the homes of Crimean Tatars in Crimea. As the 11th anniversary of the seizure of the peninsula approaches, the occupation authorities are stepping up repression. 

Most Ukrainians probably had a certain image of Crimea before the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that perception changed after 1991 when the Crimean Tatars began to return.  

The human and demographic landscape of Crimea transformed. Do you personally remember what Crimea looked like before 1991, or even before 1989, when the Crimean Tatars first started returning? How did you first come into contact with them? When did you begin to notice that Crimea was changing, that new people were arriving? At what point did this shift catch your attention?

I can't say that I visited Crimea often. When I was a child, around three or four years old, my family would travel to Crimea and rent a room in a house in Sudak. The people who lived there told us that it used to belong to Tatars and that Tatars had once lived there.  

So from a young age I was aware of the Tatars. It was almost like a myth to me. Various books often mentioned the Crimean Tatars, from stories about ancient times to Crimean legends. The presence of the Crimean Tatars was always felt.

Because of this, even as a child, I knew that people had once lived there but had disappeared. However, we had very little information and knew almost nothing about what had happened. It was only in the early 90s that it became widely known that the Crimean Tatars had been deported.  

The Soviet Union had spread the myth that the Crimean Tatars supported Hitler, which was supposedly the reason for their deportation. This idea seemed absurd to me. How could an entire nation support Hitler? And why would Tatars in Crimea support him? I could not wrap my head around it. We simply did not know the truth because no one told us.

As a child, I listened to what were called "enemy voices." In reality, they were friendly voices. I tuned in to Voice of America and the BBC, which is how I first learned about the history of the Crimean Tatars. It was not so much in my childhood but in my youth when I started following these broadcasts more closely.  

That was when I first heard about Mustafa Dzhemilev. I followed the fate of dissidents who were imprisoned, such as Viacheslav Chornovil and Mustafa Dzhemilev. I also read Solzhenitsyn’s novels, including “The Gulag Archipelago” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”. Later, Solzhenitsyn was hailed as a great emperor, but at the time, he was a political prisoner and an exile, someone who suffered under the very system he exposed.  

Through these sources, I learned about the fate of the Crimean Tatars as well as the suffering of Ukrainians in the camps.

MP Mykola Kniazhytskyi with Crimean Tatar MPs, Photo: facebook

When did you first meet Mustafa Dzhemilev? When did you have direct personal contact with him? Were your impressions shaped more by your early perceptions as a teenager, or did they change based on your later personal interactions?

It is hard to say for sure. Naturally, when I became a member of parliament, where he also served, I started seeing him more often, and we had more conversations. However, I worked as a political journalist but I was already familiar with most politicians of that time.  

I would not say that I had frequent personal interactions with Mustafa Dzhemilev. Instead, there were others who were in constant contact with the Crimean Tatars, particularly former dissidents. One example is Myroslav Marynovych. For them, Mustafa was a symbol of resilience and courage. They treated him and the Crimean Tatar people with deep respect, compassion, and admiration. I believe that this respect was passed on to me through these Ukrainian dissidents.

Was it natural for the Crimean Tatar national movement to align with the Ukrainian movement, first with the Sixties dissidents and later with the National Democratic Party? I mean figures like Dzhemilev and Hryhorenko, and later Chornovil, stood side by side. Did it make sense that these two peoples and their leaders became allies?

Yes, it was natural for many reasons. As a young Crimean Tatar once told me, "Crimean Tatars are Ukrainians of the Muslim faith." We share a great deal of history. We were neighbors, sometimes we fought against each other, but we also fought side by side. We were shaped by the same cultural influences.  

Despite common stereotypes that portray Muslims as overly traditional or closed-minded, Crimean Tatar society had its own distinct characteristics. For example, unlike in many countries where conservative or fundamentalist beliefs prevailed, Crimean Tatars considered it an honor to educate girls.

Their traditions and clothing were closely intertwined with those of Ukrainians. Many Crimean Tatar words have become part of our language and are commonly used. While they are often referred to as Turkish, they are actually of Crimean Tatar origin. This reflects the deep mutual influence between our peoples as neighbors.  We also share a significant state history. In fact, the Crimean Tatars have an older statehood than we do. This is important to acknowledge, as they established the Crimean Khanate, a powerful and independent state, at a time when our lands were still in a proto-state stage, even though we were their allies.

We come from the same land, share common values, and that is why I have always followed this issue closely. Moreover, the Crimean Tatars endured genocide. It was a great honor for me to author the first resolution in the Ukrainian parliament recognizing the deportation of the Crimean Tatars as genocide, even though their suffering had long met that definition.  

Just as Ukrainians endured the Holodomor, the Crimean Tatars experienced their own genocide. 

We are two nations that have survived such tragedies, lived side by side, and shared the same land. 

That is why this issue has always been deeply important to me.

There are clear parallels with Western Ukraine, including the same forced deportations and the struggle to preserve identity in the postwar period.

That's absolutely true. Anyone from Western Ukraine, myself included, has family stories of forced resettlement. Some were deported to Siberia or Russia, others were sent to eastern Ukraine or the northern territories of Poland. There is hardly a family in Western Ukraine that does not have relatives who were displaced.  Whether due to anti-Ukrainian policies during the Polish era, Operation Vistula, NKVD repression, or the ongoing struggle between the NKVD and the KGB against Ukrainians. Or it was connected to the Germans, who deported Ukrainians for forced labor. Ukrainians were subjected to massive resettlement, and many of them suffered greatly. In addition, not only Ukrainians, but Poles living in western Ukraine were also subjected to forced evictions, just as Ukrainians were evicted by the Poles and Poles by the Soviet authorities.  

All of these events were in one way or another the crimes of Hitler and Stalin. As a result, everyone suffered from Stalin's repressions – we, the Crimean Tatars, the Poles, and all the peoples who lived on this territory.

There is another interesting point. When Ukrainians began returning from exile after Stalin's death, during Khrushchev's more liberal regime, most were still denied the right to go back to their homes. For example, people from the Drohobych or Sokal regions were only allowed to resettle in Eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Crimean Tatars, as an entire nation, were completely forbidden from returning.  

This is a particularly striking case. Why do you think Chechens and Ingush were eventually allowed to return, while the Crimean Tatars were not? They were the only deported nation that remained banned from returning even during Gorbachev's era of liberalization and perestroika. What was it about the Crimean Tatars that provoked such hostility in Moscow? Why did they pose such a threat to the Soviet government?

They had a history of statehood, inner resilience, and their own national heroes. In many ways, they remind me of Ukrainians. You are absolutely right. There is another striking parallel. During perestroika, the Crimean Tatars went to Red Square in Moscow to demand their rights. The underground lay faithful and priests of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church did the exact same thing. They also went there, staged hunger strikes, and gathered in Red Square to draw attention to their cause. Both groups used the same approach to resist Soviet oppression. At that time, religion was beginning to be tolerated, but the Greek Catholic Church was still officially banned and was only legalized during perestroika. 

Similarly, the Crimean Tatars, a relatively small nation due to years of repression, were still prohibited from returning to their homeland. It seems clear that the reason for this was their strong sense of identity and deeply rooted values, which stood in direct opposition to Soviet ideology yet were fundamentally European at their core.

Mustafa Dzhemilev, the leader of the Crimean Tatar people, has always had the unwavering support of his community. Whenever he was put on trial or faced provocations, the Crimean Tatars stood by him, even during Soviet times. Back then, young people were unafraid of persecution. For them, it was natural to demonstrate the strength of their people and to resist fear.  

I do not know of any other people who showed such courage under Soviet rule. When you read about their actions, the question inevitably arises – how were they not afraid? But they were. And yet, they still stood up. 

They did the same during the Russian occupation. On February 26, they gathered in the square to protest, the only ones who openly defended Ukraine and its interests. When Mustafa Ağa returned to Crimea, they welcomed him by the thousands, despite the occupation, despite the risks. They are truly courageous and principled. And that is precisely what the empire fears most.

MP Mykola Kniazhytskyi and one of the leaders of the Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Dzhemilev, Photo: Espreso

An interesting point is that the Crimean Tatar people have faced repeated attempts to be divided by those in power. The communist government, later the Ukrainian government under Yanukovych, and now the Kremlin have all tried to split their society, recruit traitors, and manipulate individuals.  For example, Chiygoz said that he was literally offered the role of a Crimean Tatar Kadyrov. They have also launched repressive measures against the Mejlis and the Kurultai in an effort to undermine them. Yet despite these pressures, the Mejlis has maintained its legitimacy among the Crimean Tatar people, something that even Ukrainians might envy. Why is this the case? At what level does this resilience come from? Why do the Crimean Tatars remain so unwavering in their unity?

They have remarkably strong democratic institutions, which is quite paradoxical given their historical struggles. When they formed their national movement, they succeeded in uniting numerous public and political Crimean Tatar organizations that had previously operated separately. They came together for a common goal, the national revival and future of their people.  

At that time, Mustafa Ağa was not an undisputed leader. He was elected by representatives of these organizations even though he initially led only one of them.  

There is also political competition among them, yet they uphold democratic principles, respect one another, and value human rights. No one seeks to usurp power. This is truly unique and I believe we could learn a great deal about democracy from the Crimean Tatars.

In your opinion, does the Mejlis fully represent the interests of the Crimean Tatar people today? Is it a legitimate representative of the community, even though most of its leaders currently reside in the unoccupied territory of Ukraine?

Some leaders wanted to return, but they were arrested. For example, Nariman Dzhelal, who traveled to Kyiv for an international event knowing he would be detained upon his return, was indeed arrested. He was later transferred to Ukraine in a prisoner exchange, and recently there has been talk of his possible appointment as ambassador to the Republic of Turkey. He is an exceptionally intelligent and highly educated young man, and this would be a very positive step.  

Yes, I believe they represent the interests of their people. It is challenging because some leaders are physically separated from Crimea, and the community itself is widely dispersed. We must not forget that a significant number of Crimean Tatars left Crimea after 2014, and even more after 2022, mainly relocating to Ukraine and other European countries. Many now live around the world.  Additionally, there are Crimean Tatars who were forced to flee from Russian rule even earlier. For example, millions of them now live in Turkey.

The Mejlis is undoubtedly a legitimate body representing the interests of the Crimean Tatar people. I have no doubt about that. Ukraine did far too little to prevent what happened in Crimea. 

From the very beginning, we should have granted the Crimean Tatars national territorial autonomy.  

We hesitated because, unfortunately, xenophobic sentiments remain strong in Ukraine. Even now, many in the Verkhovna Rada are reluctant to grant the Crimean Tatars autonomy. There are persistent myths that they would supposedly sell Crimea to Turkey or betray Ukraine. Many people still fear those from different cultural backgrounds. In short, xenophobia and political short-sightedness continue to influence Ukrainian politics.

We must change this, because we have a real opportunity to reclaim Crimea legally with the support of the Crimean Tatar people. They see Crimea only as part of Ukraine, and they see their future only within Ukraine. This is a people who have suffered genocide, who are being systematically destroyed by Russia, and who have the right to declare to the world that this is their land. That is why this territory cannot remain occupied.  

Ukrainian politicians and authorities either fail to use this potential or do so inadequately. The world knows very little about their struggle. Our responsibility is to bring this issue to the international stage and ensure that the Crimean Tatars do not disappear as a people. If Crimea remains under occupation, their nation could face extinction. Above all, we must fight for their rights and for the rights of every individual within their community. Like Ukrainians, Poles, and Jews, the Crimean Tatars have the fundamental right to their land.

I understand that history is not written in ‘what ifs’, but still, what if the Ukrainian government had granted the Crimean Tatars the autonomy they requested in Moscow in 1987, rather than the version ultimately shaped by the party nomenklatura in Crimea in 1991, things could have played out differently. Could this have ensured that the Crimean Tatars would not have allowed the annexation of Crimea? If they had full political rights over their land, would they have been the safeguard that disrupted Moscow's plans?

Look, at the very least, there would have been more of them because many more people would have returned. They would not have had to seize land and build homes on their own. Instead, they would have been fully involved in managing their land. Those who returned would have been provided with apartments, houses, and proper living conditions. 

And if their numbers had been greater, their presence on the square on February 26 would have been much stronger. They were the only ones who came out to defend Ukraine that day. If more people had stood up for the country, occupying Crimea would have been much more difficult, if not impossible.  

We cannot say for certain how events would have unfolded, because history does not deal in hypotheticals. But one thing is clear – Ukraine would have been much stronger in that scenario.

But why did the Ukrainian government act this way? I am not asking about Yanukovych, as that is understandable. At the time, both the Minister of Defense and the head of the Security Service were essentially appointed by Moscow.  

But Kravchuk and Kuchma were experienced politicians with extensive backgrounds. Why did they fail to see this? They had direct contact with the Crimean Tatars, who came to their offices and proposed various solutions. Why didn’t the Ukrainian government choose to rely on the Crimean Tatars back then?

They accomplished a lot at that time. They allowed the Crimean Tatars to return, and I cannot fault them for that. However, they never fully grasped how crucial it was to grant the Crimean Tatar people the right to govern their land within Ukraine. Why did this happen? First, because a new oligarchic class was emerging. 

Each oligarch saw Crimea as their personal domain. 

They wanted to seize the best land, build luxury housing, and develop entertainment complexes. After all, Crimea is a true gem, a stunning resort. To many, the idea of granting control to the Crimean Tatars seemed like a threat.

The second factor is our post-Soviet xenophobia. It existed then and still lingers among Ukrainians today. As I mentioned, I still see it in the Ukrainian parliament. We do not always fully accept others. That being said, we are far more tolerant people than any of our neighbors. I am absolutely convinced that we have less xenophobia than the Russians, who, as a people, have historically sought to erase others. Less than the Poles, among whom xenophobia also exists, and less than the Hungarians, who, like all our neighbors, have their own nationalist biases. We are a democratic and open people, but not yet enough to fully recognize that if we claim the right to our land, to live on it, and to preserve our culture, then other peoples, including the Crimean Tatars, have the same rights. By protecting them, we protect ourselves and our own rights. If we had consistently supported them from the beginning, we would now be in a much stronger position to advocate on the international stage in the fight against Russian aggression, which denies our right to exist.  

We should be at the forefront of defending the rights of different peoples, especially those for whom Ukrainian land is indigenous and home, just as it is for us, including the Crimean Tatars.

This is the second time we have touched on the topic of xenophobia, and I agree with you that it does exist. Paradoxically, while it was once promoted by pro-Russian forces, these narratives are now being pushed by the right, even the far right. There is a certain fear behind this.  

How do you think the Crimean Tatars could address these concerns? There is a lingering fear that if they gain autonomy, Ukraine could lose Crimea for a second time and that the peninsula might drift toward Turkey, eventually falling under its control. These fears exist, and we have to be honest about that.

First of all, when they talk about autonomy, they mean that Crimean Tatars would make up 30% of representatives in local government. They are not even seeking a majority, only ensuring that their voice is heard.  

I believe this is not enough, but they themselves say that they cannot take on more, that they would not be able to manage beyond this. We need to understand their purpose and goals. They are a people who seek to preserve their culture and faith. They recognize that they can only do this within Ukraine, because otherwise, they risk assimilation.

Yes, their language is very similar to Turkish, as is their religion. But they are not Turkish people. They are a nation formed from various ethnic groups. Among them are many descendants of Italians and Greeks. Crimea was once an empire, home to Italians and Genoese who became an integral part of the Crimean Tatar people, along with Greeks, Armenians, and Jews. It was a truly multinational state, a diverse and vibrant community. That is what the Crimean Tatars are today. Even ethnically, they differ significantly from the Turks.  

Secondly, their numbers in Crimea are relatively small. Thirdly, they value freedom, and this is an important point that many in Ukraine do not fully understand or appreciate. 

Crimean Tatars want to be part of Ukraine, to serve in the Ukrainian army, and to work in the country's security forces. They dream of defending Ukraine.

They see their role as similar to that once played by the Ukrainian Cossacks in other empires. Or to what the Circassians, who were resettled in Jordan, are doing today as the backbone of the Jordanian army. Or the Druze, who serve with distinction in the Israeli military.  

This is the future they envision for themselves. For them, autonomy is not just about preserving their culture and faith but also about safeguarding their rights and their people through local governance. This is all they seek, and it is entirely justified.

But we hear a lot of speculation these days. In reality, this has always been happening, but it has intensified recently. Mustafa Ağa mentions that Chiigoz speaks of some kind of "Turkish court," implying that the Crimean Tatars represent Turkey’s interests.  

But on the other hand, why shouldn’t Ukraine take advantage of this? If the Crimean Tatars have such strong trust and connections in Ankara and Istanbul, why not utilize them as Ukrainian ambassadors?

Well, look... First of all...

I don't mean extraordinary and plenipotentiary ones.

It is not just about ambassadors. Take, for example, Ukrainian-Polish relations. They are complex, yet at the same time, Ukraine has the largest foreign community in Poland. Even before the full-scale invasion, large numbers of Ukrainians were going there for work. Why? Because the language is similar, and the cultures are closely connected.  

Despite all the misunderstandings, Poland remains Ukraine’s strongest advocate for NATO membership and European Union integration. The Poles support these processes because it aligns with their national interests and because they recognize the deep historical and cultural ties between our nations.

Similarly, Turks and Crimean Tatars are different peoples, but they share a close bond. It is easier for them to find common ground. There is a so-called Turkic world.  

Few can imagine the level of respect Mustafa Dzhemilev receives in Turkey. He is treated almost like a prophet. High-ranking government officials and state leaders kiss his hand as a sign of deep reverence. In Ukraine, he is seen as a modest elderly man who quietly walks into the Rada in a simple jacket. But for them, he is a spiritual leader.

Is it because of his life story and his struggles?

He is a spiritual leader and should be for us as well. We simply do not know enough about him. This is a man who fought not only for the rights of his own people but also succeeded in bringing them back to their native land. He had the courage to do so and he did it peacefully.  He has always spoken out in defense of other nations. He stood up for the Czechs and Slovaks against the Soviet invasion in 1968, one of the few who dared to protest. He defended the Afghans during the Soviet invasion. He supported Jewish dissidents. He consistently fought for Ukraine’s independence and stood by Chornovil and many other Ukrainian politicians.  

Even Russian politicians admired him, including Academician Sakharov, who sought to de-imperialize and democratize Russia. He is a great man whom we often underestimate. And if the Crimean Tatar people have such a leader, it speaks to their own strength and the values they uphold, values that we have yet to fully recognize and appreciate.

But these virtues are also part of us because the Crimean Tatars see themselves as part of Ukraine. They consider themselves Ukrainians of Crimean Tatar origin and it is important for everyone to understand this.  

Everything else, xenophobia, fears, and myths, stems only from superficial differences. The Crimean Tatars speak a different language, have slightly different features, and practice a different faith. This is nothing more than the natural xenophobia of short-sighted people, a legacy we inherited from the Russian Empire.

Just one last question about practical steps. The law on indigenous peoples has been adopted and is already in effect. However, regarding the recognition of the Mejlis as the official representative of the Crimean Tatar people and the issue of autonomy, who is responsible for making these decisions? Should it be the Cabinet of Ministers or the Verkhovna Rada? What is the current status of these documents?

The Verkhovna Rada needs to pass these laws, while the Cabinet of Ministers is responsible for working on them. However, most of these measures are being delayed and never make it to the floor for a vote. I believe this is shameful.  

Right now, we must pass all the necessary legislation. Why? Because there is growing discussion about negotiations, peace, and the possible freezing of the conflict. But what will happen to these lands? What will happen to Crimea? 

Do we realize that if Crimea remains under Russian control, the Crimean Tatar people will face extermination? 

And do we understand that this will be our responsibility? After all, we, Ukrainians, have failed to protect their rights and have not made this issue a global priority.  

We can bring this issue to the international stage only by demonstrating that we are taking action. When we recognized their forced deportation as genocide, we began appealing to the world, and dozens of countries have already acknowledged this fact. More will follow, and this is how the world will come to understand the Crimean Tatars and their rights. 

When we tell the world that Crimea is part of Ukraine because it is both Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar land, not Russian, the world will listen. They will hear us because we are standing up for the rights of a nation. But if we remain silent, the world may choose to look the other way.  

This is why no one has a greater stake in protecting the rights of the Crimean Tatar people and their national-territorial autonomy than we, Ukrainians, even if we do not yet fully realize it.